INTRODUCTION

THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

A:. MERICAN JOURNALISM has been regularly criti- cized for failing to be "objective." Whether it was Democrats in 1952 complaining of a one-party press biased against Adlai Stevenson or the Nixon-Agnew administration attacking newspapers and television networks for being too liberal, the press has repeatedly been taken to task for not presenting the day's news "objectively." But whyjlo critics take it for granted that the press should be_objective? Objectivity is a peculiar demand jo^make of institutions which, as business corporations, are dedicated first of all to economic survival. It is a peculiar demand to make of institutions which often, by tradition or explicit credo, are political organs. It is a peculiar demand to make of editors and reporters who have none of the professional apparatus which, for doctors or lawyers or scientists, is supposed to guarantee objectivity. And yet, journalists, as well as their critics, hold newspa- pers to a standard of objectivity. Not all journalists believe they should be objective in their work, but the belief is widespread,1 and all journalists today must in some manner confront it. But why? What kind of a world is ours and what kind of an institution is journalism that they sustain this particular ideal, objectivity? That is the problem this book addresses. I shall not ask here the familiar question: are DISCOVERING THE NEWS THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

newspapers objective? I shall ask, instead, why that question ,to_the same constraints ? It would be just as ] is so familiar. likely, that newspapers would take the avail; service news as license to concentrate on diff The question assumes special interest when one learns that, reporting. If the AP style became a model for da before the 1830s, objectivity was not an issue. American one would still have to account for its affin newspapers were expected to present a partisan viewpoint, interests and needs. But this brings us to the sec not a neutral one. Indeed, they were not expectejjp report the serious problem:objective reporting did not be« "news" of the day at all in the way we conceive it — thejdeji.pj' norm or practice in journalism in the late nine! "news" itself was invented in the Jacksonian era. If we are to when the Associated Press was growing. As I w: understand the idea of objectivity in journalism, the transfpr- second and third chapters, at the turn of the cen) mation of the press in the Jacksonian period must be exam- as much emphasis in leading papers on telling a ined. That is the task of the first chapter, which will interpret on getting fheTaHsTSensationalism in its vario the origins of "news" in its relationship to the democratiza- the chief development in newspapeFcontent. Re; tion of rjolitics, the expansion of a market economy, and_the_ as often to write "literature" as to gather news. growing authority of an entrepreneurial, urban middle class. in the bawdiest days of yellow journalism, th There is an obvious explanation of why the idea of news, Times began to climb to its premier position _bj once established, should have turned into nonpartisan, strictly ^'inform^oy'lmolBeTTratnjrjhan a "story" mod factual news later in the century. This has to do with the rise Jng^ Where the Associated Press was factual tc of the first American wire service, the Associated Press. The politically diverse clientele, the Times was info telegraph was invented in the 1840s, and, to take advantage of attract a relatively select, socially homogeneous i its speed injransmitting news, a group of New York newspa- the well to do. As in the Jacksonian era, so ii pers organized the Associated Press in 1848. Since the Associ- changes in the ideals of journalism did not tran ated Press gathered news for publication in a variety of logical changes into occupational norms so mi papers with widely different political allegiances, it could only newspaper ideals and practices consonant with tl succeed by making its reporting "objective" enough to J?e dominant social classes. acceptablc_to all of its members and clients. By the late But into the first decades of the twentieth cen( nineteenth century, the AP dispatches were markedly more the New York Times, it was uncommon for journz C[£g j£°Jn_£dJtorJfd comment than mostj-ppnrting JoF-smgie sharp divide between facts and values.4 Yet tl Itjias been argued, then, that the practice of the objectivity is jugtjthjsrjthe belief that one can Associated Press became the ideal of journalism in general.3 separate facts from values. Facts, in this view, ai While this argumenTTs plausIbTeTlitTTfst blush, there is about the world open to independent validation, remarkably little evidence for it and two good reasons to beyond the distorting influences of any individua doubt it. First, it begs a key question: why should a practice, preferences. Valuesji this view, are an individual obviously important_tp the survival of the institution ofjhe jM^unconscious preferences for what the world sho wire service, become a guiding ideal in institutions not subject are seen as ultimately subjective and so withou THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY

Jp_the same constraints? It would be just as likely, or more likely, that newspapers would take the availability of wire service news as license to concentrate on different kinds of reporting. If the AP style became a model for daily journalists, one would still have to account for its affinity with their interests and needs. But this brings us to the second, still more serious problem: objective reporting did not become the chief riorm or practice in journajism in the late nineteenth century when the Associated Press was growing. As I will show in the second and third chapters, atjthe turn of the century there was as much emphasis in leading papers on telling a good story as on getting thelartsT^elisationaTism in its various forms was thedu^rf^ewdojgmait^in newspaper content. Rcporters^ought as often to write "literature" as to gather news. Still, in 1896, in the bawdiest days of yellow journalism, the Neiu_York Times began to climb to its premier position by stressing an ^^nTormatiOTT'lnioHel, rather than a "story" model, of report- ^ym^-" ..-.-"•"— - • nil n ..I. .,_.. m ...... -.-. ... -1. -. i. .11. m. ..„,., ~.»... i.,. I •••• '••'— •-•••" 11 I- I * 1111 —•••I i. ii.,—. , *™ jng^ Where the Associated Press was factual to appeal to a politically diverse clientele, the Times was informational to attract a relatively select, socially homogeneous readership of the well to do. As in the Jacksonian era, so in the 1890s, changes in the ideals of journalism did not translate techno- logical changes into occupational norms so much as make newspaper ideals and practices consonant with the culture of dominant social classes. But into the first decades of the twentieth century, even at the New York Times, it was uncommon for journalists to see a sharp divide between facts and values.4 Yet the belief in objectivity is JujstJthisMjie belief that one can and should separate facts from values. Facts, in this view, are assertions about the world open to independent validation. They stand beyond the distorting influences of any individual's personal preferences. Values^in this view,^e an individual's conscious ^unconscious preferences for what the world should be; they are seen as ultimately subjective and so~wFthout legitimate DISCOVERING THE NEWS THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY claim on other people. The belief in objectivity is a faith in anxiety that facts themselves, or what they had "jacts," a distrust of "values," and a commitment to their facts, could not be trusted. One response to this ( segregation^ view was the institutionalization in the daily pa Journalists before World War I did not subscribe to this genres of subjective reporting, like the politic view. They were, to the extent that they were interested in Another response turned the journalists' anxiety facts, naive empiricists; they believed that facts are not human and encouraged journalists to replace a simple fa statements about the world but aspects of the world itself. with an allegiance to rules and procedures created This view was insensitive to the ways in which the "world" is in which even facts were in question. This was "o something people construct by the active play of their minds Objectivity, in this sense, means that a person's and by their acceptance of conventional—not necessarily about the world can be trusted if they are su "true"—ways of seeing and talking. Philosophy, the history of established rules deemed legitimate by a profession science, psychoanalysis, and the social sciences have taken nity. Facts here are not aspects of the world, but co great pains to demonstrate that human beings are cultural validated statements about it.6 While naive empirici animals who know and see and hear the world through disappeared in journalism and survives, to some ex socially constructed filters. From the 1920s on, the idea that of us, after World War I it was subordinated to human beings individually and collectively construct the reali- sophisticated ideal of "objectivity." ty they deal with has held a central position in social thought.6 Discussion of objectivity as an ideal (or ideology) Before the 1920s, journalists did not think much about the medicine, law, the social sciences, journalism, ; subjectivity of perception. They had relatively little incentive pursuits tends to two poles: either it seeks to ur to doubt the firmness of the "reality" by which they lived. profession in question or to glorify it. It is either deb American society, despite serious problems, remained buoyant self-serving. Debunkers show that the claims of prc with hope and promise. Democracy was a value unquestioned about being objective or expert or scientific are r in politics; free enterprise was still widely worshipped in attempts to legitimate power by defining political economic life; the novels of Horatio Alger sold well. Few technical terms. This is often true. But, first, why is people doubted the inevitability of progress. After World War ity" the legitimation they choose, and, second, wh I, however, this changed. Journalists, like others, lost faith in often convincing to others? When professionals mak verities a democratic market society had taken for granted. to authoritative knowledge, why do they base the Their experience of propaganda during the war and public their objectivity rather than on, say, divine revei relations thereafter convinced them that the world they re- electoral mandate? Debunking by itself does not pr ported was one that interested parties had constructed for answer. them to report. In such a world, naive empiricism could not The opposite stance is to Whiggishly identify obje last. journalism or in law or other professions with " This turning point is the topic of my fourth chapter. In the where science is understood as the right or true or bes twenties and thirties, many journalists observed with growing knowledge. This is the point at which science, £ THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY anxiety that facts themselves, or what they had taken to be facts, could not be trusted. One response to this discomfiting view was the institutionalization in the daily paper of new genres of subjective reporting, like the political column. Another response turned the journalists' anxiety on its head and encouraged journalists to replace a simple faith in facts with an allegiance to rules and procedures created for a world in which even facts were in question. This was "objectivity." Objectivity, in this sense, means that a person's statements about the world can be trusted if they are submitted to established rules deemed legitimate by a professional commu- nity. Facts here are not aspects of the world, but consensually validated statements about it.6 While naive empiricism has not disappeared in journalism and survives, to some extent, in all of us, after World War I it was subordinated to the more sophisticated ideal of "objectivity." Discussion of objectivity as an ideal (or ideology) in science, medicine, law, the social sciences, journalism, and other pursuits tends to two poles: either it seeks to unmask the profession in question or to glorify it. It is either debunking or self-serving. Debunkers show that the claims of professionals about being objective or expert or scientific are really just attempts to legitimate power by defining political issues in technical terms. This is often true. But, first, why is "objectiv- ity" the legitimation they choose, and, second, why is it so often convincing to others? When professionals make a claim to authoritative knowledge, why do they base the claim on their objectivity rather than on, say, divine revelation or electoral mandate? Debunking by itself does not provide an answer. The opposite stance is to Whiggishly identify objectivity in journalism or in law or other professions with "science," where science is understood as the right or true or best path to knowledge. This is the point at which science, generally DISCOVERING THE NEWS THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY understood as opposed to ideology, threatens to become ide- mechanism. Others may be institutional. For insta ology itself. But that, in a sense, is just what interests me scholars argue that courts are able to be more obje< here—not the internal development of science as an institu- legislatures because judges are institutionally further tion or a body of knowledge and practices, but the reasons the from the pressures of electoral politics than are le idea of science and the ideal of objectivity are so resonant in Objectivity in the professions is guaranteed, then our culture. Even if science, as we know it today, is in some autonomy of professional groups—the collective indej sense getting us nearer to truth than past systems of knowl- of professions from the market and from popular will edge, we can still inquire why twentieth-century Western personal independence of professionals, assured I culture should be so wise as to recognize this. And that is a training, from their own values. question that glorifications of science and objectivity do not In this context, the notion of objectivity in jov answer. appears anomalous. Nothing in the training of joi gives them license to shape others' views of the world. It should be apparent that the belief in objectivity in journal- journalists have esoteric techniques or language. Nev\e directly dependent on market forces. They appeal ism, as in other professions, is not just a claim about what kind of knowledge is reliable. It is also a moral philosophy, a to popular opinion. Journalism is an uninsulated pn declaration of what kind of thinking one should engage in, in To criticize a lawyer, we say, "I'm not a lawyer, but- making moral decisions. It is, moreover, a political commit- to question a doctor, we say, "I'm no expert on m ment, for it provides a guide to what groups one should but—." We feel no such compunction to qualify criti acknowledge as relevant audiences for judging one's own the morning paper or the television news. I do not subs thoughts and acts. The relevant audiences are defined by the view that journalism is thereby inferior to other institutional mechanisms. Two mechanisms of social control sional groups; I simply mean to identify the prob are frequently said to underwrite objectivity in different objectivity in the case of journalism. How is it that fields. First, there is advanced education and training. This is occupation without the social organization of self-rq supposed to provide trainees with scientific knowledge and an authority there is still passionate controversy about ol objective attitude which helps them set aside personal prefer- ity? Of course, one answer is that the less a profession ences and passions. Thus the training of physicians enables to be self-evidently objective, the more passionate the ( them to sustain detached attitudes at times when persons versy will be. But this is not answer enough. W without such training would submit to panic or despair at the journalism, where none of the features that guarantee human agony they face. Law students are taught to distin- tivity in law or medicine exist or are likely to exist, ! guish "legal" questions (generally understood to be technical) objectivity still be a serious issue? Why hasn't it been gi' from "moral" issues (generally understood to be outside the altogether? proper domain of legal education and legal practice). By the 1960s, both critics of the press and defender A second basic form of social control is insulation from the objectivity to be the emblem of American journalisi public. Technical language or jargon is one such insulating improvement over a past of "sensationalism" and a conti 8 THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY mechanism. Others may be institutional. For instance, legal scholars argue that courts are able to be more objective than legislatures because judges are institutionally further removed from the pressures of electoral politics than are legislators. Objectivity in the professions is guaranteed, then, by the autonomy of professional groups—the collective independence of professions from the market and from popular will, and the personal independence of professionals, assured by their training, from their own values. In this context, the notion of objectivity in journalism appears anomalous. Nothing in the training of journalists gives them license to shape others' views of the world. Nor do journalists have esoteric techniques or language. Newspapers are directly dependent on market forces. They appeal directly to popular opinion. Journalism is an uninsulated profession. To criticize a lawyer, we say, "I'm not a lawyer, but—" and to question a doctor, we say, "I'm no expert on medicine, but—." We feel no such compunction to qualify criticism of the morning paper or the television news. I do not subscribe to the view that journalism is thereby inferior to other profes- sional groups; I simply mean to identify the problem of objectivity in the case of journalism. How is it that in an occupation without the social organization of self-regulated authority there is still passionate controversy about objectiv- ity? Of course, one answer is that the less a profession is seen to be self-evidently objective, the more passionate the contro- versy will be. But this is not answer enough. Why, in journalism, where none of the features that guarantee objec- tivity in law or medicine exist or are likely to exist, should objectivity still be a serious issue? Why hasn't it been given up altogether? By the 1960s, both critics of the press and defenders took objectivity to be the emblem of American journalism, an improvement over a past of "sensationalism" and a contrast to DISCOVERING THE NEWS THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY the party papers of Europe. Whether regarded as the fatal journalism and general currents in economic, politi flaw or the supreme virtue of the American press, all agreed and cultural life. that the idea of objectivity was at the heart of what journalism With two such ambitions, I know my reach ha has meant in this country. At the same time, the ideal of my grasp. If I have not achieved as much here as 11 objectivity was more completely and divisively debated in the I hope nonetheless to have engaged the reader's int< past decade than ever before. In the final chapter, I will quest and the questions. examine how changing subject matter, sources of news, and audience for the news precipitated this debate in journalism. Government management of the news, which began to con- cern journalists after World War I, became an increasingly disturbing problem with the rise of a national security estab- lishment and an "imperial" presidency after World War II. In the Vietnam war, government news management collided with a growing "adversary culture" in the universities, in journalism, in the government itself, and in the population at large. The conflagration that followed produced a radical questioning of objectivity which will not soon be forgotten and revitalized traditions of reporting that the objective style had long overshadowed. The ideal of objectivity has by no means been displaced, but, more than ever, it holds its authority on sufferance. I originally conceived this work as a case study in the history of professions and in the genesis of professional ideology. I saw objectivity as the dominant ideal that legiti- mates knowledge and authority in all contemporary profes- sions. If I could excavate its foundations in one field, I could hope to expose its structure in all. While this book has not entirely outgrown that ambition, it came to be moved equally by another. I grew fascinated by journalism itself and con- vinced there were important questions, not only unanswered but unasked, about the relationship of journalism to the development of American society as a whole. Where standard histories of the American press consider the social context of journalism only in passing, this work takes as its main subject the relationship between the institutionalization of modern 10 THE IDEAL OF OBJECTIVITY journalism and general currents in economic, political, social, and cultural life. With two such ambitions, I know my reach has exceeded my grasp. If I have not achieved as much here as I would like, I hope nonetheless to have engaged the reader's interest in the quest and the questions.

11 OBJECTIVITY, NEWS MANAGEMENT, THE CRITICAL Cl late sixties, many found Walter Cronkite's nightly as CHAPTER 5 that "that's the way it is" too smug and prefer] challenge to "tell it like it is"—as if the reality to be r was too wild to be tamed by grammar. "Objectivity is a myth," announced reporter Kerry i OBJECTIVITY, of the Raleigh Observer, and many young journalists her view. Sydney Gruson, her father and the assistani NEWS MANAGEMENT, AND publisher at the New York Times, claimed, in cc "Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I feel very strongly afo THE CRITICAL CULTURE purity of the news columns. Pure objectivity might no but you have to strive for it anyway." The remarks Grusons were brought together by Stanford Sesser Wall Street Journal in the fall of 1969. Sesser was rej on antiwar activism among journalists. Sydney Grus< turned down the request of 308 employees at the Times A N THE 1960s "objectivity" became a term of abuse. In the the company's auditorium for discussion during the C thirties, critics who had attacked objectivity favored interpre- 15 moratorium against the war in Vietnam. Kerry C tive reporting as a way of maintaining professional standing believed her father's decision was wrong. She herself i in a world which had outgrown the blunt approach of "just black armband while covering stories on October 15.1 getting the facts." But, in the sixties, the goal of professional- The Journal article was a set piece for the conf ism itself had become suspect. Critics claimed that urban generations as it was seen in American journalism in tl planning created slums, that schools made people stupid, that sixties—a conflict between the old defending objectivit medicine caused disease, that psychiatry invented mental the young attacking it, between those who had fouf illness, and that the courts promoted injustice. Intellectuals, World War II and those born to the affluence and anxi no longer seen as the source of dispassionate counsel, were the cold war, between those reluctant to abandon supp dubbed the "new mandarins," while government policy mak- American policy in Vietnam and those angry at it, be ers were called "the best and the brightest" in a tone of most the institutional responsibilities of powerful newspaper untender irony. And objectivity in journalism, regarded as an the individual bravado of young reporters. Not leas antidote to bias, came to be looked upon as the most insidious Journal story was itself a part of the set: in the sixti bias of all. For "objective" reporting reproduced a vision of never before, news writing was itself a topic for social reality which refused to examine the basic structures of coverage. power and privilege. It was not just incomplete, as critics of We have seen a conflict of generations in journalism fo the thirties had contended, it was distorted. It represented Editors in the 1890s trained reporters to keep their opi collusion with institutions whose legitimacy was in dispute. out of their stories, and young reporters rebelled at And there was an intense moral urgency in this view. By the discipline. Editors and reporters perennially have diff

160 OBJECTIVITY, NEWS MANAGEMENT, THE CRITICAL CULTURE late sixties, many found Walter Cronkite's nightly assurance that "that's the way it is" too smug and preferred the challenge to "tell it like it is"—as if the reality to be reported was too wild to be tamed by grammar. "Objectivity is a myth," announced reporter Kerry Gruson of the Raleigh Observer, and many young journalists shared her view. Sydney Gruson, her father and the assistant to the publisher at the New York Times, claimed, in contrast: "Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I feel very strongly about the purity of the news columns. Pure objectivity might not exist, but you have to strive for it anyway." The remarks of the Grusons were brought together by Stanford Sesser in the Wall Street Journal in the fall of 1969. Sesser was reporting on antiwar activism among journalists. Sydney Gruson had turned down the request of 308 employees at the Times to use the company's auditorium for discussion during the October 15 moratorium against the war in Vietnam. Kerry Gruson believed her father's decision was wrong. She herself wore a black armband while covering stories on October 15.1 The Journal article was a set piece for the conflict of generations as it was seen in American journalism in the late sixties—a conflict between the old defending objectivity and the young attacking it, between those who had fought in World War II and those born to the affluence and anxiety of the cold war, between those reluctant to abandon support of American policy in Vietnam and those angry at it, between the institutional responsibilities of powerful newspapers and the individual bravado of young reporters. Not least, the Journal story was itself a part of the set: in the sixties, as never before, news writing was itself a topic for news coverage. We have seen a conflict of generations in journalism before. Editors in the 1890s trained reporters to keep their opinions out of their stories, and young reporters rebelled at this discipline. Editors and reporters perennially have different 161

i I

I DISCOVERING THE NEWS OBJECTIVITY, NEWS MANAGEMENT, THE CRITICAL ( tasks at hand, different interests to protect, and different social structure of news gathering which reinforce ambitions to serve; younger journalists and older journalists viewpoints of social reality. Correspondingly, newsj are at different points in their careers and have different the past decade—especially those most prestigious, ir concerns. That these differences should yield correspondingly erful, and with most resources to devote to news gat different attitudes toward reporting the news is not have sought autonomy from official views and promo surprising. Max Frankel of the New York Times called "an < But in the past, the resentment of young reporters against concept of what is news."2 There is more interprets editors was occasioned only by a conflict of interests on the ing or "news analysis," more investigative or "enl job. It was not connected to broader political currents, and it journalism, and more tolerance for new varieties ol did not express itself in a political idiom. In the sixties, writing. But why at this time should criticism of conv however, the generational rebellion was part of a general news gathering have been so pointed, and why sho cultural crisis. Young reporters still wanted to express their ideas and new institutions in journalism have found ; passion and personal style in print, but the rebellion at the support as they have? conventions of "straight news" emerged more as a serious I will suggest in this chapter that two conditions political challenge than as an adolescent stage in the passage new criticism of journalism possible and popular and to professionalism. Young reporters not only called for a more changes in newspaper content seem desirable. First, tli active journalism, a "participant" journalism skeptical of increasing government management of the news and official accounts of public affairs; they also claimed pointedly ing awareness of it. It has been said too often and to that journalism had long been too participant. "Straight that all governments lie and that all presidents back to news" was not only drab and constricting—it was in itself a Washington have tried to mislead the press and i form of participation, a complicity with official sources whose public.3 The modicum of truth in such assertions obsci most alarming feature was that it so self-righteously claimed fact that management of information has been an org to be above partisan or political considerations. funded, and staffed function of government for jus In the sixties, one might still criticize a newspaper for years. Indeed, only since World War II has the imp following the bent of its publisher or the intentional biases of and relative isolation of a national security establishmi its editorial staff. And much of this criticism was deserved. an "imperial presidency" made government news But the most original critics of the past decade have stressed, especially on matters of foreign policy, the symbolic ce instead, that journalists were "political" unwittingly or even the relationship between the government and the pres: unwillingly. Their political impact lay not in what they The second basis for new developments in journalis openly advocated but in the unexamined assumptions on the emergence, in the 1960s, of an "adversary culture which they based their professional practice and, most of all, adversary, or critical, culture denied to government a 1 in their conformity to the conventions of objective reporting. trust it had come to expect and provided an audiena In this view, objectivity was not an ideal but a mystification. more aggressive and more skeptical journalism. The a The slant of journalism lay not in explicit bias but in the in the late sixties between news management and the 162 OBJECTIVITY, NEWS MANAGEMENT, THE CRITICAL CULTURE social structure of news gathering which reinforced official viewpoints of social reality. Correspondingly, newspapers in the past decade—especially those most prestigious, most pow- erful, and with most resources to devote to news gathering— have sought autonomy from official views and promoted what Max Frankel of the New York Times called "an exploded concept of what is news."2 There is more interpretive report- ing or "news analysis," more investigative or "enterprise" journalism, and more tolerance for new varieties of feature writing. But why at this time should criticism of conventional news gathering have been so pointed, and why should new ideas and new institutions in journalism have found as much support as they have? I will suggest in this chapter that two conditions made a new criticism of journalism possible and popular and so made changes in newspaper content seem desirable. First, there was increasing government management of the news and a grow- ing awareness of it. It has been said too often and too glibly that all governments lie and that all presidents back to George Washington have tried to mislead the press and con the public.3 The modicum of truth in such assertions obscures the fact that management of information has been an organized, funded, and staffed function of government for just sixty years. Indeed, only since World War II has the importance and relative isolation of a national security establishment and an "imperial presidency" made government news policy, especially on matters of foreign policy, the symbolic center of the relationship between the government and the press. The second basis for new developments in journalism was the emergence, in the 1960s, of an "adversary culture." The adversary, or critical, culture denied to government a level of trust it had come to expect and provided an audience for a more aggressive and more skeptical journalism. The collision in the late sixties between news management and the adver- 163 DISCOVERING THE NEWS OBJECTIVITY, NEWS MANAGEMENT, THE CRITICAL CU public opinion and with the need for public assent in sary culture over the Vietnam war changed journalism in Baker himself was disappointed, then, that the negol significant and, I think, lasting ways, which the final section at Paris turned out to be shrouded in secrecy. He kne of this chapter will consider. Wilson's promise of "open covenants of peace openly ; at" meant only, as Wilson explained, "that no secret ments should be entered into" and not that "there she no private discussions of delicate matters."5 Baker d Government and the Press: "News Management" object to governments keeping some of their meetings dential from the news-reading public, but he did ci Wilson for keeping them secret from the press. "It ha The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 symbolized the modern proved over and over again," he asserted, "that no gr relationship between government and the press. It undercut men can be more fully trusted to keep a confidence or the self-image of the press as a key actor in decision making at wisely than a group of experienced newspaper corr exactly the moment the press was most enchanted with its dents—if they are honestly informed and trusted in tr own powers. Wars are good for journalists as for generals. place."6 After the war, however, editors and reporters found them- Paris did not mark a new era in open diploma selves not partners to government, but instruments of govern- decisively as Baker had hoped, but it did announce ment. They were valued—and feared—not for their capacity relationship between the press and the government in to represent public opinion, but for their power to control it. he had not anticipated, for it made publicity itself Ray Stannard Baker, onetime muckraker who was Presi- political issue. For the first time in the history of Am dent Woodrow Wilson's aide in Paris running the American foreign policy, political debate at home concerned not or Press Bureau, expressed the high hopes of the fourth estate: substance of decisions the government made but also th< One fact stands out at the Paris Peace Conference as distinctive and in which the government made decisions. Foreign determining: the fact that the people of the world, publics, were began to be domesticated; the legitimacy of procedure, a there represented and organised as never before at any peace as the effectiveness of outcome, became an issue. In th conference. At the older congresses, the diplomats occupied the entire stage, bargained, arranged, and secretly agreed; but at Paris week of the Peace Conference, American correspoi democracy, like the blind god in Dunsany's play, itself comes wrote in protest to Wilson regarding rules of secrecy the lumbering roughly, powerfully, out upon the stage.4 commissioners had adopted, and Joseph Tumulty in ^ ington warned the President of the distrust his adhere When Baker said "publics" and "democracy," he meant secrecy would engender. Five months later there was c reporters from the newspapers and wire services. It was over public release of the treaty draft, and the Senate pa typical of liberal thought of the 1920s that the press was taken resolution calling on Wilson to transmit the draft i to be the very incarnation of democratic government. Press Senate. From beginning to end, publicity was a politica coverage of the Peace Conference, in Baker's view, was to of the first importance.7 open a new epoch in world diplomacy. From that moment on, This peacetime resort to managing the news was a national policy would have to be formulated in the presence of

164